1 / 36

Office of the Independent Monitor

Office of the Independent Monitor. 2003 - 2004 Monitoring Activities. Monitoring. Data Systems Performance Outcomes. 2. Overview of Data Systems Monitoring. 3. Data Systems. Concerns of accuracy of the data based on discrepancies found between data sources: SIS, SESAC, and Welligent

leila-arnold
Télécharger la présentation

Office of the Independent Monitor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Office of the Independent Monitor 2003 - 2004 Monitoring Activities

  2. Monitoring • Data Systems • Performance Outcomes 2

  3. Overview of Data Systems Monitoring 3

  4. Data Systems • Concerns of accuracy of the data based on discrepancies found between data sources: SIS, SESAC, and Welligent • Discrepancies highlighted by AIR study, suspension data and disproportionality study. • We conducted a survey of the implementation of the Welligent system to determine accuracy of data (2/17/04 – 2/27/04). 4

  5. Data Systems • Welligent Survey Findings Results from 460 Schools identified as fully training 60% schools were fully implementing 21% schools partially implementing 19% schools not implementing • Top Reasons for Not Implementing Welligent Technical Problems Lack of Training Access to the System Changes in Administration • District continues to address these areas and improvement has been noted. 5

  6. Overview of Outcomes Monitoring 6

  7. Process for Developing New Outcomes • Review of data • Expert consultation/reports • Scientific studies • Negotiations with parties 7

  8. Outcome #1: Participation on State-wide Assessments • Goal is to increase the number of students with disabilities participating in the state-wide assessments. • 2003-2004 data expected September 2004. 8

  9. Outcome #2: Performance on Statewide Assessments • The parties agreed to the following outcome: By June 30, 2006, the Percentage of Students with disabilities in grades 2-11 participating in the California Standards Test (CST) whose scores place them in the combined rankings of Basic, Proficient and Advanced will increase to at least 32.4% in English Language Arts and at least 32.8% in Mathematics. • 2003-2004 data will be available September 2004. Status (2002-2003): 9

  10. Outcome #3: Special Education Graduation Rate • The goal is to increase the number of students with disabilities that receive a high school diploma. • The rate of students with disabilities who graduated declined from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003. • Data will be available September 2004. 10

  11. Outcome #4: Special Education Completion Rate • This outcome measures special education students that complete high school with a diploma or certificate and tracks drop-out. • Data will be available September 2004. 11

  12. Outcome #5a: Long-Term Suspensions (over 6 days) • Goal is to reduce the percent of long-term suspensions to no more than 2% of the total number of special education students suspended. * Data from 7/1/03 to 6/15/04 12

  13. Outcome #5b: Overall Suspensions and Suspensions in Comparison to Non-DisabledStudents • The parties agreed to the following outcome: By June 30, 2006, the District will reduce the risk of suspension for the population of students with disabilities by 30% from the rate of 14.7% in the 2002-03 school year, to a rate lower than 10.3%. By June 30, 2006, the District will reduce disproportionality in the District-wide rate of suspension of students with disabilities in comparison to their non-disabled peers to a relative risk ratio of no more than 1.75X discrepant, such that the population of students with disabilities is nor more than 1.75 times more likely to be suspended than the population of their non-disabled peers. * Data from 7/1/03 to 6/15/04 13

  14. Outcome #6: Least Restrictive Environment • Students with Learning Disabilities and Speech and Language Impairments placed at least 60% of their school day in general education. * CASEMIS Data 14

  15. Outcome #7: Least Restrictive Environment • Students with all other disabilities spending at least 60% of their school day in General Education. * CASEMIS Data 15

  16. Outcome #8: Placement of Students with Disabilities at their Home School • The parties agreed to the following outcome: 8a: The District will ensure that the percentage of students with disabilities with the eligibilities of specific learning disabilities (SLD) and speech and language impaired (SLI) who are in their home school does not fall below 92.9% by June 30, 2006. Status: 16

  17. Home School Placement (continued) • 8b: By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities with all other eligibilities in kindergarten and sixth grade to 65% and the percentage of students with disabilities with all other eligibilities in ninth grade to 60%. Status: 17

  18. Home School Placement (continued) • 8c: By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities in the elementary grades one through five in their home school to 62.0%. By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students with disabilities in middle school grades seven and eight in their home school to 55.2%. By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the percentage of students within high school grades ten and above in their home school to 36.4%. Status: 18

  19. Outcome #9: Students with Transition Plans • Students with disabilities who are 14 and older are required under the law to have an individual transition plan that will contribute to their ability to transition into post-school life. Status: 19

  20. Outcome# 10: Timely Completion of Evaluations • Federal law requires that all assessments be completed within 50 days. 20

  21. Outcome #11: Parent Complaint Response Time • Based on current performance District is on course to meet outcome. 21

  22. Outcome #12: Informal Dispute Resolution • The District agreed to establish a systemic structure for the informal resolution of IEP disputes prior to due process. • The District piloted IDR in four local Districts (B,C,E and H). • As of 6/23/04, 140 families utilized the process. 22

  23. Outcome #13: Delivery of Services • During the 2003-2004 School Year, the Independent Monitor and the American Institutes for Research conducted a study of the delivery of special education services in LAUSD. • Based on the results of the study, the following two-part outcome was agreed upon by the parties: By June 30, 2006, 93% of the services identified on the IEPs of Students with Disabilities in all disability categories except specific learning disability will show evidence of service provision. In addition, by June 30, 2006, 93% of the services identified on the IEPs of students with specific learning disability will show evidence of service provision. 23

  24. Outcome #13: Study Findings *Exclusion of SLD population increases log to service agreement to 63.7%. 24

  25. Outcome #13 (continued) • By June 30, 2006, The District will provide evidence that at least 85% of the services identified on the IEPs of students with disabilities will have a frequency and duration that meets compliance with the IEP. 25

  26. Outcome #14: Parent Participation • During the 2003-2004 School Year, the Independent Monitor and WestEd conducted a study on levels of parent participation. • Based on the study results and Welligent data, the parties agreed to the following outcome: By June 30, 2006, the District will increase the rate of parent participation in IEP meetings in the area of attendance to 75%. By June 30, 2006, 95% of the records of IEP meetings in which the parent does not attend will provide evidence of recorded attempts to convince the parent to attend the IEP meeting in accordance with Section 300.345(d) of the IDEA regulations. Status: 26

  27. Outcome #14: Parent Participation- WestEd Study Overview • Telephone survey was conducted to determine levels of parent participation within LAUSD. • A representative sample was drawn based on District demographics (ie. ethnicity, disability type, local district, school level). • 627 respondents, from a sample of 1,164. • Survey was conducted in 8 languages. 27

  28. Study Results • 80% of the respondents reported attending their child’s last IEP. • 93.5% of parents report feeling like an equal part of the IEP. • 54% of parents not attending the IEP report giving the school permission to proceed with the IEP. • 65.7% of parents report being presented with different placement options. 28

  29. Outcome #15: Timely Completion of Future Translations • The District has not met the 2003-04 benchmark. • The Office of the Independent Monitor has directed the District to complete those translations over 60 days by August 4, 2004. 29

  30. Outcome #16: Qualified Special Education Teachers • The goal is to increase the percentage of qualified SPED teachers and reduce the gap between qualified SPED and General Education teachers. 30

  31. Outcome #17: Behavioral Interventions • The Office of the Independent Monitor presented the parties with information regarding the present levels of behavior support plans district-wide. • The parties agreed to the following outcomes: By June 30, 2006, the percentage of students with autism with a behavior support plan will increase to 40% and the percentage of students with emotional disturbance with a behavior support plan will increase to 72%. 31

  32. Outcome #18: Disproportionality • The parties agreed to the following outcome: By June 30, 2006, 90% of African American students identified as emotionally disturbed during an initial or triennial evaluation, will demonstrate evidence of a comprehensive evaluation as defined by the Independent Monitor and consideration for placement in the least restrictive environment as determined by the Independent Monitor. 32

  33. Outcome #18: Disproportionality African American Students Identified as ED • The OIM conducted a District-wide study to identify factors that may contribute to disproportionality. • The OIM consulted with the following experts: Dr. Gwendyln Cartledge, Ohio State University Dr. Stanley Trent, University of Virginia Dr. Dan Reschly, Vanderbilt University • African Americans are 4.4 times more likely to be identified ED than all other ethnicities. • African Americans are 4.9 times more likely to be placed in a more restrictive placement (non-public schools) than all other ethnicities. Current rate of Identification for African Americans: 33

  34. Disproportionality: District-wide Study Overview • Review of 270 ED students cumulative files from 32 middle schools and 207 identifying schools. • Sample consists of 123 African American, 118 Latino, 24 White, and 5 other students. Sample is representative of the District’s ED population. • Study reviewed the following areas: Pre-referral interventions; Co-morbidity or additional eligibilities; Assessment practices; Justification of ED; Service Provision; and other considerations for determination. 34

  35. Study Findings • 32% of African American students demonstrated evidence of an SST vs. 54.2% of White students. • 65.9% of African American and 66.9% of Latino students had evidence of a full psychological evaluation, compared to 83.3% of White students. • 37.4% of all students newly identified as ED, demonstrated justification of ED with an eligibility statement. • Approximately 50% of all students had a behavior support plan upon identification. • Systematic deficits found in the identification process for all groups. 35

  36. Other Activities • Selection of DVR parent members. • Recruitment of Parents’ Council Members • Annual Hearing • School Site Visits • Collection of feedback from Teachers, Parents, and Administrators 36

More Related